From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: GH replacement proposal (includes a bit of Unicode) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:31:48 -0400 Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid? Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <4086A1BF.9C8F7914@veritas.com> <87vfjtm2v5.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <40880289.8070405@dirk-herrmanns-seiten.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1082663427 9688 80.91.224.253 (22 Apr 2004 19:50:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:50:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bkorb@veritas.com, guile-devel@gnu.org, Marius Vollmer Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 22 21:50:15 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BGkD8-0007Fy-00 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:50:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BGk1v-0004Uz-AV for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:38:39 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1BGjsJ-0003E0-5Q for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:28:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1BGjC7-00019C-EG for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:45:38 -0400 Original-Received: from [129.22.104.47] (helo=mirapoint2.tis.cwru.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.30) id 1BGizp-0005hB-Br for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:32:25 -0400 Original-Received: from multivac.cwru.edu (multivac.ITS.CWRU.Edu [129.22.114.26]) by mirapoint2.tis.cwru.edu (MOS 3.4.3-CR) with SMTP id AXZ35645; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:31:49 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (qmail 8153 invoked by uid 500); 22 Apr 2004 18:32:11 -0000 Original-To: Dirk Herrmann In-Reply-To: <40880289.8070405@dirk-herrmanns-seiten.de> (Dirk Herrmann's message of "Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:36:09 +0200") Mail-Copies-To: nobody Mail-Followup-To: Dirk Herrmann , Marius Vollmer , bkorb@veritas.com, guile-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 29 User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3628 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3628 Dirk Herrmann wrote: > The names scm_is_true and scm_is_false don't fit into the schema, > since true and false are no types. We might think of these scm_is_* functions more generally as predicates, some of which happen to be type predicates. But I agree that type predicates ought to have their own naming convention separate from other predicates. (OTOH, we could think of types as general sets of values, and these two sets just happen to not correspond directly to any C-level type tag.) Then again, I think I'm pretty happy with what we have in validate.h. Shrug. > Further, if implemented as above, scm_is_true does not bring > additional benefit and is confusing, since scm_is_false checks for > #f, while scm_is_true checks for not-#f. They may be more readable in different situations. It's up to the programmer to use them well. > But, there is still not yet any function that checks for #t. To do > so, you would first have to call scm_is_bool and scm_is_true > afterwards. Or, as Marius suggested, scm_is_eq(x, SCM_BOOL_T). paul _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel